Sign up to receive free email alerts when patent applications with chosen keywords are publishedSIGN UP

Abstract:

This claim is for methods of delivering items in space which allow for
increases in the efficiency of mass based propulsion systems. This claim
is based upon existing knowledge that professionals in the field of
rocketry should understand with no need of reference materials.

Claims:

1. Methods of delivering items in space, comprising: a) a launching
system capable of accelerating a delivery system, b) a delivery system
that is capable of: 1) changing its own trajectory in transit to a
capture system, 2) carrying multiple types of items, and c) a capture
system capable of collecting launched delivery systems, whereby a payload
in space attached to the capture system can have items delivered to it
while having the capacity to maneuver.

Description:

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

[0001] This application claims the benefit of PPA application #61754535,
filed 19 Jan. 2013 by the present inventor, which is incorporated by
reference.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

[0002] Not Applicable.

REFERENCE TO SEQUENCE LISTING, A TABLE, OR A COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING
COMPACT DISC APPENDIX

[0005] A) Restricted to sourcing oxygen
and hydrogen or water from the moon into space near the moon, not
performing as a part of a propulsion system.

[0006] B) This prior art was
also written when hydrogen's presence on the moon had not been quantified
in significant mass in any verifiable manner. The lunar observations and
analysis performed by Chandrayaan-1, Deep Impact, and Cassini indicate
that Hydrogen and Water both exist in significant quantities on the moon.
This means that the above proposal does have potential for supplying at
least some, and potentially large amounts of water for use in space from
the moon--but it's not intended as part of a propulsion system.

[0007] 2) The Star Tram project By Dr. James Powell and Dr. George Maise

[0008] A) Earth based launching system. Similar in intent to the
"Electromagnetic Launch of Lunar Material" prior art above, except the
launch would be to Earth orbit. Not intended as a component of a
propulsion system.

[0009] B) This system might be the most efficient
method of initially getting components of a large scale accelerator into
space, but the limited trajectories and massive power requirements to
accelerate payloads out of Earth's gravity well would make it far less
suitable as component of a large scale space propulsion system than a
system based in space, or in a much weaker gravity well.

[0011] A) Physics argument: "an enormous
amount of energy is required to send a human payload out of Earth's
gravitational field to its deep space destination and back again." This
is true, but an assumption is made that all of the required energy to
accelerate the fuel and the payload itself would be carried in one body
with the payload.

[0012] B) Chemistry argument: "there is a hard limit to
how much energy you can extract from the rocket fuel, and that no amount
of ingenuity will change that." This is true, but far less of an
impediment than the author implies, provided that you avoid accelerating
all of the fuel and all of the payload as one body.

[0014] A) In this article, Mr Kolm indicates that it was possible in
1980 to launch a 1000 kg projectile out of Earth Atmosphere from a 7.8 km
launcher using the cumulative power output of a 1000 MW power plant for
1.5 minutes. This technology is now 30+ years out of date.

[0015] B) Mr
Kolm mentions using this system as an Earth-based launcher to dispose of
nuclear waste, or to send fuel into orbit, not as a component of a
propulsion system.

[0016] 5) "Ram Accelerator Direct Launch System for Space Cargo"
IAF-87-211 by A. P. Bruckner and A. Hertzberg from Aerospace and
Energetics Research Program, University of Washington.

[0017] A) In
this article, the plausibility of a "ram accelerator" is discussed. A
"ram accelerator" being a chemically powered, "direct launch of cargo to
low Earth orbit" device with the capacity for the projectile to have
limited self-propulsive capability for orbital maneuvering.

[0019] A) This article speaks to the efficiencies of propellant types
more than mechanics of delivering fuel, but it does mention a fueling
station. There is no mention of accelerating fuel to meet the payload. A
payload docks and takes on fuel rather than carrying fuel from the
Earth's surface with a single launch, or receiving fuel incrementally
during its journey.

[0020] B) There is no mention of actually delivering
fuel to the payload so it can return to Earth, further demonstrating that
this article is merely an exercise in calculating efficient acceleration
of an item from Earth's orbit to a distant location, rather than a method
of delivering fuel.

[0022] A) Requires both an electromagnetic accelerator
system and a potent power generation system to be accelerated along with
a payload, significantly increasing the actual accelerated mass.

[0023]
B) The launcher is an EM launcher, and the propulsion system of the
payload is also an EM launcher, which absorbs the momentum of the
incoming launched projectiles. This proposal is narrow in scope and
includes a high level of potential failure points at the payload end,
where service and repair efforts will be drastically limited while the
payload is in flight.

[0024] C) The number of course corrections allowed
by the payload would be limited to the number of projectiles that it has
managed to capture, and the available energy to accelerate said
projectiles. There might also be some small amount of maneuvering that
the payload could perform with chemical fuel.

[0025] D) A minor error in
calculations could result in a hypervelocity projectile impacting the
drive system. You cannot robustly protect this propulsion system, while
at the same time capturing incoming projectiles to generate momentum
transfer, because those two actions are performed by the same system. For
there to be significant transfer of energy, the incoming projectile must
be moving substantially more rapidly than the payload it approaches.

[0026] E) The energy for acceleration at the end of journey in order to
stop the payload must be provided internally, or a collector system for
solar energy must be included, requiring even more mass. Stopping this
ship by using its own internal launcher will suffer from the same
mass-to-accelerate-the-mass issue that simply carrying any other type of
fuel would have. You need projectile mass and power to accelerate the
ship, and the payload will have to supply all of its power and mass needs
at the end of its journey.

[0028] A) "Interstellar transportation over periods shorter than the
human lifetime requires speeds in the range of 0.2-0.3c. These speeds are
not attainable using rockets, even with advanced fusion engines.
Anti-matter engines are theoretically possible but current physical
limitations would have to be suspended to get the mass densities
required. Interstellar ramjets have not proven practicable, so this
leaves beamed momentum propulsion as the remaining candidate." This only
holds true if one tries to carry all of one's fuel and payload in one
lump, or a very small number of stages. There are multiple methods of
acceleration, including mass based propulsion systems, which would
provide sufficient acceleration to get a modest payload up to 0.2-0.3c.
The faster one wants to go, the greater the infrastructure expenses, but
to start with, for interplanetary travel, we can manage things just fine
with mass based propulsion system methods if we don't try to carry the
full fuel payload with us all at once. As for interstellar travel, the
infrastructure requirements for accelerating fuel up to 0.2 to 0.3c are
daunting but not insurmountable once we actually get into space with a
significant industrial presence.

[0031] B) Adjustment of the course of the micro-scale
sails is possible, but the maneuverability of the payload during
acceleration would be extremely limited.

[0032] C) Accelerating back to
low velocities would be limited to magnetic sails and/or solar sails,
which limits the maximum velocity of the payload if it is expected to
stay at its destination rather than performing a flyby.

[0033] 10) "Method for lightening the weight of fuel stowed onboard during
an interplanetary mission" by Sainct, et al. from USPTO #8322659

[0042] A)
Only considers launching from a gravity well in its embodiments,
specifically stating "The use of remote fuel for launching and for
propelling orbital and suborbital vehicles is new and not suggested in
prior art."

[0044] C) Payload design requires
a large degree of armoring and protective mass in order to protect the
payload from explosions or excessive acceleration effects required by the
acceleration methods described.

[0045] D) No provision is made for the
delivery of non-fuel cargo.

[0046] Prior to this method, there were three basic classes of propulsion
systems that might be used for space exploration, each with their own
problems:

[0047] 1) Mass based propulsion systems were considered
impractical due to the unnecessary restriction of being required to carry
all or most of the mass required for a voyage from the beginning of the
voyage. Since no in-transit delivery system had been considered which
could be used for fuel delivery, total delta-v available to a mission
built around mass based propulsion was extremely limited.

[0049] 3)
High energy systems where propulsion is provided remotely based on
lasers, particle beams, etc. Impractical due to mission duration,
engineering scalability, and microgravity health issues for crews due to
low accelerations, amongst other things.

[0050] There are only two acceleration technologies discovered in prior
art that are superficially similar to the claim made within this
document. They are both based on proven technologies, and could
potentially be built with today's technology. They are "Spaceship
Propulsion by Momentum Transfer" by Robert C Willis, USPTO#5305974, and
"Method and apparatus for moving a mass" by Westmeyer; Paul A. (Laurel,
Md.), Mazaheri; Renee (Laurel, Md.) USPTO #7500477

[0051] I will discuss "Spaceship Propulsion by Momentum Transfer" first.
This method by definition requires electromagnetic launchers both to
accelerate a projectile, and to slow said projectile at the payload
itself, generating a momentum transfer exactly as its title implies. This
means that the propulsion system of the accelerated mass is in direct and
immediate danger every time there is a momentum transfer because the
projectile capture system is also the drive system. Additionally, the
onboard electromagnetic receiver/launcher requires a power source capable
of generating sufficient energy to power said onboard electromagnetic
launcher. This is especially a concern for acceleration at mission end
for non-flyby missions. Between the electromagnetic drive system and the
power plant, there is a lot of massive, highly complex, and unforgiving
mission critical equipment. This might be a potential method for unmanned
flyby probes, but not for most intercept missions or missions with a
return component.

[0052] Now I will discuss "Method and apparatus for moving a mass" by
Westmeyer; Paul A. (Laurel, Md.), Mazaheri; Renee (Laurel, Md.) USPTO
#7500477. The method is exclusively based on acceleration methods which
accelerate a mass along an arcuate path. The launchers mentioned and the
acceleration methods described are always related to launching from
within a gravity well. The discussion of prior art in USPTO #7500477
clarifies the intended scope of the patent with the statement: "The use
of remote fuel for launching and for propelling orbital and suborbital
vehicles is new and not suggested in prior art." The payloads which are
described further clarify that the method is designed for leaving a
significant gravity well, as the method is described in such a way that
the payload must channel significant explosive or impact energy into
motive force. No mention is made in the method's description of low
energy capture of delivered fuel, or the capture of delivered fuel
followed by controlled acceleration. The greater mass, expense, and
higher degree of structural engineering required to create a payload
capable of withstanding many large impacts or explosions as a design
feature for normal acceleration is not necessary for low acceleration
systems in space, though some lesser capacity for absorbing explosions or
impacts in an emergency would be prudent. As a last note, this method
makes no mention of delivering non-fuel to the payload.

[0053] Next, let's look at something simpler and broader than these two
suggestions. Based on the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, we can see clearly
that the combined mass of payload and fuel being accelerated quickly
becomes unreasonable for any mass based propulsion system where all of
the fuel required for all delta V requirements are carried as a single
mass from the beginning of a maneuver or mission.

[0055] This equation illustrates why nearly all space launches using mass
based fuels use fuel stages. Once a stage's fuel is gone, all the
unnecessary mass from that stage's fuel containment is discarded,
allowing the remaining stages and payload to accelerate with less overall
mass. It makes a significant difference to fuel requirements.

[0056] This problem is incorrectly perceived to be universal to all mass
based propulsion methods and that is why the space exploration community
has mostly moved away from using mass based propulsion for space
transport within our solar system and beyond. Many highly respected
individuals within the space exploration community have gone as far as to
declare that mass based propulsion cannot feasibly be used to go very far
at all in space in the near term. These individuals look at the math for
single stage or multiple stage self-fueled mass based propulsion payloads
and see huge mass requirements--and they are right! The simple fact is
that we don't have to do it the way that they are imagining it.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0057] The method described is intended to make mass based fuels more
viable for space transport by increasing delta V for any given fuel mass
providing propulsion.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING

[0058] There are only two drawings:

[0059] Drawing 1: A simple concept drawing to illustrate the methods.

[0060] Drawing 2: Graph of Rocket Mass ratio versus Delta V.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

First Embodiment

[0061] In order to accomplish in-transit fueling, we need a system that
can launch fuel in space to rendezvous with the payload that is using
said fuel to accelerate. The choices of example technologies for this
embodiment do not limit the scope of the method. The example mass of the
primary embodiment were chosen to be close to that of a United States
space shuttle, in order to better allow persons familiar with prior space
propulsion systems to quickly grasp the utility of the method.

[0062] For near term initial implementation of a launcher to move fuel to
a 100,000 kg payload within the solar system, the power source for the
acceleration of cargo/fuel would almost certainly be solar, either some
type of solar thermal energy generation based on mirrors, or
photovoltaic. Nuclear energy generation might also work, but would
require more complicated engineering for safety and heat dispersal.
Undoubtedly there are other technologies which might also produce enough
power for the launcher, but most are impractical at this time simply due
to mass related requirements to get them into orbit. Solar power
generation requires no fuel, no requirement to protect crew from
radioactive sources above and beyond what we already expect to encounter
in space, and is proven technology, both for solar thermal and for
photovoltaic technologies on a large scale. So we'll use solar thermal
power as the power source in our example.

[0063] Within the limits of current technology, some of the most mass and
energy efficient methods of rapidly accelerating masses to velocities
measured in kilometers per second are electromagnetic. There are
non-electromagnetic methods that might be able to do the job of
accelerating a delivery system to high velocities, but for this
embodiment we will consider only electromagnetic acceleration.

[0064] Quench guns are the most energy efficient of the electromagnetic
options. When quench guns were first theorized, they required low
temperature superconductors, which in turn required extremely difficult
to engineer cooling systems. With modern advances in higher temperature
superconductor technologies, the cooling needs of the superconducting
components of such a device would not be anywhere near as difficult to
engineer. Non-superconducting coilguns or railguns might also work but
would be far less energy efficient, likely leading to greater maintenance
needs--which might be fine if the cost savings for their design and use
warrants it. There are almost certainly other adaptations or combinations
of technologies better suited for accelerating a payload in space than a
pure electromagnetic quench gun system. Initial acceleration launch
systems, for example, which might accelerate a delivery system before it
enters the quench gun. The exact technologies used for acceleration are
not critical, so this example will use a simple electromagnetic quench
gun, with no hybrid system considerations.

[0065] Next, let's postulate a solar power system and quench gun launcher
system. First let us generate an estimate of how much power we can
generate with a 500,000 m 2 heliostat mirror system used in a space based
solar thermal installation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS20_solar_power_tower is an example of a
fully functional solar thermal energy collection system on Earth. The
PS20 facility utilizes 1255 mirrors of 120 m 2 each to generate 20 MW of
power. Roughly 1 MW power generated per 7500 m2 of mirrors. In space,
without the effects of Earth's atmosphere, and with 365 day/24 hour
exposure to sunlight, doubling this power output per m 2 of mirror is
conceivable. We should be able to generate roughly 1 MW of power per 3750
m 2 of heliostat mirrors given a similar efficiency to the processes at
the PS20 station. A facility with 500,000 m 2 of heliostat mirror surface
area would therefore generate roughly 133 MW of power.

[0066] What will 133 MW of power do for us for a launcher? Let's assume a
hypothetical 250 kg mass projectile. 50 kg of the mass is components and
200 kg is some type of mass based fuel or payload. How much power would
be required to accelerate such a projectile to 10 km/second? Roughly how
long would the launcher need to be?

[0067] The kinetic energy of a projectile is (1/2)mv 2, and we are taking
250 kg to 10000 m/s so we need 12,500,000,000 joules of energy, which our
power plant can supply in 12500000000/133000000 seconds or roughly once
per 94 seconds. Adjustments for efficiency would need to be made, of
course, but the quench gun itself is extremely efficient, and the
calculations for power per m 2 mirror area were based off the operational
efficiency of a real world solar power system, so the calculations for
the 133 MW power system already include substantial inefficiency.

[0068] So let us consider that we will accelerate our delivery system at
an average of roughly 10000 g or 100000 m/s 2, roughly two-thirds of what
electronics in modern artillery shells are rated for. At this
acceleration, we can accelerate to 10000 m/s in roughly 0.1 seconds in an
acceleration path of roughly 500 meters. There will be inefficiencies,
and it might be cost beneficial to make the launcher significantly longer
to reduce the rate that the acceleration energy is applied to the
launcher, but even with massive inefficiencies, a quench gun less than a
kilometer long can launch projectiles at sufficient velocities to be
useful for the calculations in this embodiment. Quench guns are
theoretically capable of much higher accelerations, but the container,
its components, and its contents must also be capable of withstanding the
acceleration.

[0069] This is a substantial sized system, but it's not out of proportion
to the size of the solar energy facility we already discussed. The two
could be combined, with the solar facility's mirror system shielding the
launcher system from the sun, while providing power for launch and
cooling. The combined mass of this embodiment's launcher system and solar
facility would be significant enough that it might be necessary to keep
it at a Lagrange point in order to minimize gravitational forces acting
on it.

[0070] Since we are accelerating 250 kg at 10000 g, this embodiment's
quench gun system would ideally be as straight and perfectly under
control as possible, leading to high degrees of accuracy delivering fuel
to the capture system, but the delivery system and the combined package
of capture system and payload can both maneuver so minor trajectory
errors are correctable, greatly reducing the risk of damage to the
capture system and payload. Launching system station keeping might be
performed by launching in two directions, negating acceleration of one
launch with another, with fine station keeping managed by any number of
different technologies.

[0071] See Drawing 2: Taking another look at the Tsiolkovsky rocket
equation, this time graphically in a comparison of mass ratio to Delta V
in multiples of effective exhaust velocity, we can see that any
accelerated mass will behave the same when fuel mass is measured against
said accelerated mass. This image is from Wikipedia, and is unrestricted
use.

[0072] First, let us look at the ideal mass requirement for a simple
system where all the fuel is carried from launch. With a Hydrogen/Oxygen
mass based fuel, effective exhaust velocity of roughly 4462 m/s, if we
want to add 10 km/s velocity to the payload, based on the above image we
need a mass ratio of roughly 8 to 9. Doing the math for a mass roughly
that of a US space-shuttle:

[0074] Fuel mass=840,343 kg for a 10 km/second delta V in space for a
100,000 kg payload powered by hydrogen/oxygen fuel. If we carry it all
with us in a single stage. Mass ratio of roughly 8.4, which is what we
expected.

[0075] Now let's look and see how much acceleration we can get in an ideal
scenario with a 100,000 kg payload from each 250 kg container carrying
fuel. 50 kg of each delivered container is components, so we include that
in accelerated mass.

Ideal acceleration per 200 kg fuel(Y)=4462 Ln(100250/100050) Y=8.91 m/s
acceleration of a 100,000 kg payload powered by a oxygen/hydrogen fuel
per each 200 kg of fuel carried in a 50 kg container. If we want to get
10 km/second of delta V 8.91 m/s at a time, we would need roughly 1125
launches of fuel, or 225,000 kg fuel.

[0076] It is clear that the fuel mass savings as a result of delivering
mass based fuel in small quantities are significant. For a delta V of 10
km/sec on a 100,000 kg oxygen/hydrogen fueled accelerated mass we go from
840,343 kg fuel mass to 225,000 kg by delivering fuel 200 kg at a time as
opposed to carrying the full mass of fuel all at once. In other words we
reduce fuel mass ratio requirements from 8.4 to 2.25. This becomes even
more remarkable when one realizes that the accelerated mass gains 8.91
m/s of delta V per delivery of 200 kg of fuel, making fuel requirements
for missions with a great deal of maneuvering linear, rather than
geometric. If you need a delta V of 20 km/sec for a mission that includes
multiple complex accelerations, your fuel requirements grow linearly, not
exponentially--provided that you do not need to accelerate to a relative
velocity in excess of any available launcher system's capability.

[0077] So, we fuel in flight, 200 kg of fuel at a time up to 10 km/s
relative to the launcher which is the hypothetical limit of this
example's electromagnetic launcher. This can be done by launching fuel
ahead of the payload and having the payload catch up with it and/or
fueling from behind by the launcher directly, or possibly a combination
of both, with specifics depending on the requirements of the mission.

[0078] What if we want to accelerate to a higher velocity than what our
launcher can manage? That's when it might be appropriate to launch large
numbers of fuel deliveries to the payload in order to fill fuel tanks
that were empty during initial acceleration so the travelling payload
could use standard "carry all the fuel with you" rocketry to further
accelerate. Half the delta V provided by the delivered fuel could be used
to increase velocity, and half would be used to decrease velocity. Since
we've already done the math, let's use it. Our 100,000 kg payload is
accelerated to 10 km/sec by 225,000 kg of fuel delivered 200 kg at a
time. Then the accelerated mass takes on about 850,000 kg of fuel 200 kg
at a time, and accelerates up to 15 km/sec, then back down to 10 km/sec
with the stored fuel, at which point, fuel launched by the launcher
system at the accelerated mass's origin could once again be captured by
the accelerated mass.

[0079] There is another way to accelerate beyond the capability of an
originating launcher system. It requires multiple launcher systems at
different velocities within the solar system. This would be a very cost
ineffective method for small numbers of payloads, but as space industry
advances, it would certainly become attractive, since a Mercury based 10
km/second launcher could accelerate an accelerated mass to 28 km/s in
relationship to Earth, while avoiding geometric fuel requirements. Moving
cryogenic payloads out of a Mercury orbit might prove problematic due to
solar energy--depending on the effectiveness of shielding and heat
dispersal--it's just an example of the potential. With a large number of
launchers in the solar system, it would be possible to accelerate a
delivery system multiple times by multiple launcher systems at different
solar orbital velocities, even discounting Mercury. In extreme cases with
multiple decades of planning, launchers with eccentric orbits could
impart far more velocity than even a Mercury based launcher. Halley's
Comet reaches roughly 55 km/sec at perihelion, for example, and it
doesn't get as close to the sun as Mercury.

[0080] Next, we need to consider return trips. Ideally the first
significant mass sent to a site that planning indicates will see many
future visits would be some method of power generation, a launcher
system, and a capture system, but if that isn't possible, or if the site
is a one-time visit, it would also be possible to simply accelerate
several containers of fuel in the same manner that the payload itself was
accelerated, and have them waiting at the destination for the payload to
collect if there is no launcher in place.

[0081] Capturing low relative velocity objects in space is already
regularly done today to resupply the International Space Station. In our
case, both the delivery systems and the combination of capture system and
payload can maneuver to match trajectories. The capture system will
collect the delivery systems while overtaking them, or while being
overtaken by them, or a combination of both depending on the mission. The
capture system connected to the payload could be based on any technology
which would allow for safely intercepting a delivery system at low
relative velocities. Propulsion systems could be components of the
capture systems and/or components of the payload and/or the delivery
systems' integral maneuvering thrusters. Exact propulsion configuration
would be dependent on the mission. Each delivery system will be capable
of communicating with the capture system in order to coordinate capture.

[0082] The driving concept here is that if we are going to use mass based
propulsion systems for space travel, we do not want to carry all of the
mass of the fuel with us, all at once, unless the delta V needs are
small. There are additional advantages beyond simple fuel efficiency. An
advantage of many mass based fuels, especially the simpler chemical
fuels, is that the equipment required to utilize them for propulsion is
not terribly mass intensive, the mass requirements they have in designs
predating this method are significantly impacted by required fuel mass,
structural requirements to handle fuel mass, and safety considerations.
Since each of the delivery systems has its own propulsion system, it
might even be a good idea in some mission designs to simply use the
propulsion systems of the delivery systems as the propulsion system for
the mission, meaning less mass that must be accelerated and less overall
engineering complexity. Nothing stops one from using solar or magnetic
sails in conjunction with this method, to assist in acceleration. Various
other present or future technologies might be similarly compatible.

[0083] Oxygen and hydrogen were specifically chosen as fuels for this
example because they are relatively easy to acquire and process, and are
known to be available in several places around the solar system. Oxygen
and hydrogen delivered to the accelerated mass could be used to meet
oxygen and water needs of a crew. In a highly efficient closed loop
system that consideration might not be of paramount concern, and other
fuels might be used--with any oxygen or water needs supplied as required.
Other deliveries of supplies could also be considered if they can survive
the acceleration of the launcher. For example plastic, ceramic, and
metallic stock for use by 3d printers, dried food stocks, hardened
electronics, medical supplies, and anything else that might both be
useful and capable of surviving acceleration to match velocities with the
accelerated mass. The shells of the delivery systems themselves, once
cargo or fuel is removed, could be used as sensor, beacon, or
communications platforms. They might also be broken down for raw
materials for use in repairs or simply added to the ship as enhancements
to radiation and/or micrometeorite shielding. In the absence of any other
use, the empty delivery systems could just be discarded in space with a
small amount of fuel and instructions to enter a degrading orbit to fall
into a star or planet. It's also conceivable that the delivery systems
might be outfitted with small solar sails and solar panels so they would
need no fuel to accomplish self-destruction or self-positioning as a
beacon or communications relay. In an established back and forth traffic
pattern between destinations, delivery systems might even be launched,
captured, emptied, released, then be retrieved and recycled.

[0084] Any engineer that looks at the first embodiment of the method and
sees the size of the constructs, and starts thinking about the math is
going to immediately realize that a system like what was described for a
100,000 kg accelerated mass is going to be rather substantially expensive
compared to simply taking a little more time or using a lot more fuel to
get to nearby destinations in space a few times. For any sort of
relatively fast construction/implementation of the first embodiment, some
sort of low cost Earth to orbit heavy lift system would probably need to
be built, adding large scale costs to the project before it's even
started. On the other hand, this system has a great deal more to offer
than sending a limited number of ships to a limited number of
destinations.

[0085] The launcher system can be used to:

1) supply fuel to many ships over time, 2) supply power for other space
based industries when not actively accelerating fuel, or when actively
accelerating fuel to low velocities, 3) provide mobility to asteroids to
move them to where they can be refined, then moving the resulting refined
materials to where they need to go, 4) dispose of nuclear or other waste
products, 5) engage Near Earth Objects to break them up or deflect them,
and 6) establish other launchers near other fuel sources or useful places
throughout the solar system.

[0086] In other words if this method were implemented on a significant
scale its implementation would almost certainly become a core component
or keystone of space industry, space exploration, and effective
protection of the planet from Near Earth Objects. In many potential
embodiments, it is also highly expandable by adding more power generation
or by increasing the capacity of the launcher system itself.

Second Embodiment

[0087] It would be very difficult to justify an initial implementation of
this method at anything approaching the capacity described in the first
embodiment above. There is no need for a hugely expensive new heavy lift
system or new multibillion dollar support systems for a simpler test
case. Ideally, the test case would need to be at least capable of
defraying its own costs during development and study. There are a few
different, plausible methods to do this, two obvious methods are
discussed a bit later.

[0088] It would be relatively inexpensive to put a very small launcher
system in space and use it to launch fuel or even equipment to small
probes exploring the asteroid belt or other places in the solar system.
Thoroughly surveying the asteroid belt with small probes would be ideal
as a first step towards a real human space presence. We could learn what
metals and other compounds are available and accessible, including water,
which would help us decide where to put the first small launcher in or
near the asteroid belt, with plans for future industrial and human
expansion over time.

[0089] Since we want easy and simple for a test system, a photovoltaic
solar panel array connected to a small electromagnetic launcher used to
launch very small delivery systems could be used to keep a few probes
flying around in the asteroid belt, surveying for resources worth
harvesting. It would be efficient to have two probes active in different
places, so you could accelerate the launcher system in one direction with
one launch, then the other direction with the next, maintaining orbit,
without wasting delivery system containers or launch energy.

[0090] How could this system generate income to defray costs? There are at
least two obvious methods for the earliest implementations. One obvious
method would be to simply provide fuel delivery to probes that others
have designed to be compatible with the fuel delivery system. A second
obvious method (which might be performed simultaneously) would be to
control one's own survey drones to survey asteroids for valuables, and
either sell the survey data or reposition and harvest the asteroids if
they are sufficiently valuable. Recovery or destruction of damaged probes
or other space junk could also be performed with whatever systems are
designed for repositioning asteroids.

[0091] Mining asteroids by bringing them near Earth for processing is
nothing conceptually new, people have been thinking about how to do it
for decades. The problem has been the process of finding and moving them.
This method provides insight into many potential possibilities for both
getting relatively cheap, long-lived sensor payloads to the asteroid belt
with the ability to maneuver at need, and for providing the fuel or
materials required to move asteroids as appropriate for resource
retrieval.

[0092] Even a test system will be expensive. Putting things in space isn't
cheap. Building them to operate there for extended periods is certainly
not cheap. But there's another hidden benefit here. Intelligently
providing fuel as needed rather than trying to carry it all at once for
an entire mission has the potential to drastically reduce the mandatory
complexity and expense of payload design, even for small probes. Less
expensive materials and less precise machining could be a catalyst to
drastically lower design and fabrication costs of probes. Heavier
shielding might allow for less expensive electronics. Simply not
requiring significant fuel storage could increase payload mass budgets.
Even a very small pilot system could drastically reduce the cost of
exploring our solar system while teaching us the things we need to know
to be able to start building a space based industry with confidence. Then
again, engineers might choose to continue to use high cost materials and
equipment, and simply create much more capable payloads or in the case of
crewed missions, similarly capable payloads with a great deal more
radiation shielding and redundant life support for crew.